linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 03/10] PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180608093613.GD658@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Fri, 8 Jun 2018 11:36:13 +0200
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To:     Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, peterz@...radead.org,
        rjw@...ysocki.net, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, morten.rasmussen@....com, chris.redpath@....com,
        patrick.bellasi@....com, valentin.schneider@....com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, thara.gopinath@...aro.org,
        viresh.kumar@...aro.org, tkjos@...gle.com, joelaf@...gle.com,
        smuckle@...gle.com, adharmap@...cinc.com, skannan@...cinc.com,
        pkondeti@...eaurora.org, edubezval@...il.com,
        srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com, currojerez@...eup.net,
        javi.merino@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 03/10] PM: Introduce an Energy Model management
 framework

On 08/06/18 09:25, Quentin Perret wrote:
> Hi Dietmar,
> 
> On Thursday 07 Jun 2018 at 17:55:32 (+0200), Dietmar Eggemann wrote:

[...]

> > IMHO, part of the problem why this might be harder to understand is the fact
> > that the patches show the use of the 2. init call
> > 'em_rescale_cpu_capacity()' but not the 1. one 'em_register_freq_domain()'.
> > I guess that Quentin wanted to keep the set as small as possible.
> 
> Yes, this is confusing. I'm now starting to think that patch 10/10 should
> probably not be part of this patch-set, especially if I don't provide
> the patches registering the freq domains from the CPUFreq drivers. And
> it's the only "Arm-specific" patch in this arch-independent patch-set.
> 
> So I think I'll drop patch 10/10 for v4 ... That part should be
> discussed separately, with the rest of the Arm-specific changes.

Mmm, I would actually vote to at least have one example showing how and
where the em_register_freq_domain() is going to be used. I had to look
at the repo you referenced since I think it's quite fundamental piece to
understand the design, IMHO.